Caffeinated Politics

Let me start out this column by stating the obvious. Mass violence continues to unfold in our nation with assault weapons like the AR-15, a weapon not designed for civilian life, but which kills with battlefield efficiency in our communities and on our streets. And believe it or not, that violence has a very good chance of increasing.

People far and wide across this nation have worked with their local officials to address an unavoidable policy question. Should it be permitted for deadly assault-style weapons that were engineered for rapid, high‑capacity killing to circulate freely among the civilian population? Given the gun death statistics in our nation, that question is not a small one, and the efforts by the citizenry to address it must not be shrugged off.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the next term concerning Cook County’s ban on assault weapons and a similar law in Connecticut. Let’s be very clear as to what is being teed up for a sweeping ruling on the constitutional right, or not, to own such deadly and dangerous firearms. The county’s assault weapons ban includes prohibitions on the AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles that have proven to have aided in statistically heavy murders and crime. The ordinance applies to more than 100 rifles, shotguns and pistols, and it prohibits the sale, manufacture, loan, transfer, acquisition or possession of those weapons, as well as large-capacity ammunition magazines that generally hold more than 10 rounds. Violations of the law can result in fines of $5,000 for a first offense, $10,000 for a second offense, and up to 6 months in jail.

There are about a dozen large cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., where similar laws are in effect. The other case that the Court will hear arguments on comes from Connecticut, which passed a law after a mass shooter used an AR-15 to kill 26 children and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. It is a proven fact that this type of gun, which I again point out is similar to military-grade weapons, is the preferred weapon of mass shooters.

I was talking with an older man recently about metal lawn darts that were once common for summertime backyard entertainment. Logic, of course, says they were dangerous. Knowing that assault-style rifles result in significantly higher fatalities than incidents involving handguns, it is astounding that they are afforded such regulatory leniency. How can metal lawn darts be outlawed, while an AR-15 is considered a perfect gift for a child at their birthday? The gun culture is a warped one, indeed.

I am under no illusion about the Court’s purpose or mission in this hearing of these cases. While Columbia v. Heller was a dreadful and ill-reasoned ruling, some of us took a bit of solace when the ruling added language acknowledging that “dangerous and unusual weapons” may be restricted. For those who can accurately evaluate such things, it is clear that assault‑style rifles fit that category by any common standard of word definition. As such, states and municipalities have operated with the understanding that public safety is a compelling governmental interest and have passed laws designed not to eliminate the right to own firearms, but rather to regulate a specific class of weapons whose risks far outweigh any legitimate civilian use.

What I fear is that this partisanly controlled, right-wing Court is to upend those bans in the coming session. Public safety and empirical evidence will be tossed aside in favor of elevating ideological loyalty. This concern is not about the law but instead about appeasing the political movement that helped shape their ascent.

Meanwhile, the bottom line of law enforcement and a wide majority of our nation is clear. Our nation is suffering severely from weapons of war remaining unregulated in civilian hands.